Post Jan 06, 2016 by HMGYarbrough
Part 3, The Aftermath
All in all I thought the evaluation was fair and demonstrated the quality and durability of each target. Like I said earlier, I intended to test these targets to failure. I succeeded in doing that. I wanted the HMG target system to prove that it could handle whatever was thrown at it and still keep on going. Buying steel for your range is an investment regardless if you’re a government agency or the guy shooting in your backyard. If you are going to spend the money and invest in your training why not buy the best, most durable and versatile product available. Hopefully this evaluation shows you just a small portion of what is out there when it comes to reactive steel target systems and that going cheap isn’t always the best idea.
Our third party evaluator gave final scores to all the targets as you’ll see below;
All scores were based on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best. He included additional comments with each target.
Appearance Quality Versatility Durability
TARGET A: 2 2 2 2
Evaluator noted the target had little reaction, bolts worked loose, and did not survive until the end.
TARGET B: 3 3 3 2
Evaluator noted that bolts came loose, the target face was bending, and became worse throughout the evaluation.
TARGET C: 4 3 3 3
Evaluator noted legs on base damaged, bolts were damaged, minor divots.
TARGET D: 2 3 1 4 (not evaluated at range)
HMG TARGET: 4 4 4 5
Evaluator noted, no damage slight divots after steel core 5.56 and wrote “this thing is a tank”.